Duke's fluid foibles

COULD EARLY action have prevented the public relations nightmare now facing Duke over an amber-colored fluid mix-up?

There’s no way to tell.

One thing’s for certain, though: Media from across the country is eating up the stories of vocal patients who say they’ve become sick since undergoing surgeries at Duke’s Raleigh and Durham hospitals with tools washed in hydraulic fluid instead of detergent.

ExxonMobil, which manufactures the hydraulic fluid, says it’s concerned that Duke may have “omitted key facts” in what it told the public it could, and couldn’t, disclose.

Either way, Duke’s apparent mistakes—including inconsistencies in announcing the fluid problems to failing to properly staff a heavily-advertised patient hotline, according to local media—have reblackened an eye still sore from 2003’s heavily publicized death of teenager Jesica Santillan following transplant mistakes.

The medical bruhaha started in January when it was discovered that drums labeled as sanitizing detergent contained hydraulic fluid. The liquid had been used in operating rooms to clean surgical tools, leaving a slippery substance on the tools.

The mix-up originally occured last fall when elevator maintainence personnel filled drums labeled as detergent with used hydraulic fluid. The drums were then returned to a medical supplier who shipped them to several area hospitals, including Duke’s Raleigh and Durham Regional hospitals.

The oily liquid was then used in a multi-step cleaning process on tools used in surgeries last November and December.

Duke, through health system spokesperson Jeff Molter, has tried to stem the flow of national media attention.

In a June letter sent to patients, DUHS president and CEO Victor Dzau wrote, “We were also hampered by delays in obtaining information.... In February we requested from Exxon-Mobil a detailed list of the chemical ingredients present in the fluid at the time.”

ExxonMobil counters that it had been kept in the dark by the health care provider. It says it was notified by Duke on February 16 that “one or more Duke employees” had “skin contact” with the used hydraulic fluid.

“Had Duke informed ExxonMobil of the nature of the issue, ExxonMobil’s initial response would have been equally immediate and unrestricted,” a company news release read.

“Duke did not indicate that patients may have been exposed to used hydraulic fluid, nor did they ask for an immediate response.... As such, ExxonMobil processed the request in its regular course of business,” the corporate response continued.

The company says Duke asked later—in March—for a list of the fluid’s ingredients.

Additionally, Duke didn’t ask for permission to distribute that information, ExxonMobil said.

A June 27 letter from DUHS to affected patients stressed that ExxonMobil had not previously allowed for the chemical composition to be released. The letter also announced DUHS would release information about the contents of the hydraulic fluid to patients, more than six months after the discovery of the mix-up and days after what Duke claimed was legal wrangling with ExxonMobil.

Whether or not Duke was forthcoming about its ability to release information about the fluid’s ingredients, they claim the liquid has proven in lab tests to be a non-issue.

The residue left on the surgical tools was equivalent to 0.002 of a drop, Duke says its reports show. And the amount of trace heavy metals in that fluid was miniscule at best, it says.

Now hungry medical malpractice attorneys are circling the waters, running television ads for clients that compete with newscasts of angry patients. Duke won’t be able to shirk from the scrutiny of its latest medical mistake; now it will hope to avoid painful public litigation. But could it have reined in the controversy with early disclosure?

The Associated Press contributed to this Report.

Discussion

Share and discuss “Duke's fluid foibles” on social media.